On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote:
[please send replies to the list, as I'm a subscriber and didn't asked
to get replies twice; thank you]
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
>
> > On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that
> > allows it to change form: see my Fortran<->C example.
>
> No, I specifically reject your claim that the "source code" of the
> existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply because
> the author changes his mind after the fact.
Perhaps I expressed myself in a misleading way.
The source code for already distributed versions will stay the same.
What is in a new form, is the source for a more recent version
distributed after the author has begun to actually modify Fortran code
rather than C.
For that version there is no C code from which you can rebuild the
executable. And the form the author actually prefers when further
modifications are needed is Fortran code.
>
> >> Note that the GPL does not define that it is the author that does
> >the> preferring.
>
> > Yes, but the author's opinion (more precisely the last modifier's
> > one) counts as he/she is the one who actually modifies or modified
> > the work and allowing him/her to translate from a language to
> > another one is really important, IMO.
>
> It's important, but it does not trump everything else in cases where
> it would lead to nonsense.
Of course.
>
> >> 2) Conversely, we cannot reasonably accuse the author of releasing
> >> his work under non-free conditions if he *does* give us every
> >> form he himself used to create it, and allows us to distribute
> >> them under otherwise free conditions.
>
> > I agree entirely, but with a
>
> > s/used to create it/uses to modify it/
>
> So you think that if the author never modified the work after
> initially creating it, and does not plan to do so, the work can be
> free without us having anything source-like?
No, if the author never modified the work and does not plan to do so,
he/she simply does not give any indication on which is his/her preferred
form for modification.
In that case, I think we should ask: "which form would you prefer,
should you make modifications to the work?".
The question may be asked to the actual author or to other people with
similar skills.
> In that case "every form
> he himself uses to modify it" is an empty set, and under your revised
> statement the work would be trivially free.
Maybe it's clearer with a
s/used to create it/uses or would use to modify it/
>
> > Suppose that J. Random Hacker initially generates a work by using
> > some special tool (a non-free tool that generates images
> > representing fractals, for instance); then he goes on modifying it
> > with normal manipulation tools (The Gimp, for instance).
> > What is source code in this case?
> > Does it include the special tool?
>
> According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
> the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
> tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then we're in the grey
> area where we have to apply common sense or other rules of thumb.
I agree with you that it would be far better if we could get the special
tool (and even better if the special tool were DFSG-free!), but would it
be *required* for the generated work to be DFSG-free?
We have to judge: in most cases my bet is that providing the special
tool is optional (an interesting and useful optional, but still not
mandatory).
>
> >> As with other grey areas we have to fall back to other and more
> >> fuzzy criteria here, such as: "Which form would a _reasonable_
> >> person with the skills to understand and appreciate the work prefer
> >> for modifying?".
>
> > My only concern with this approach is: what do we mean by
> > 'reasonable'?
>
> We will find to reach a consensus about a what a reasonable meaning of
> "reasonable" is in each case.
>
> Sorry, but we _cannot_ encapsulate our concept of freedom into a
> mathematical bright-line test that can _always_ be applied without
> judgement calls. There _will_ always be boundary case where we need to
> actually _think_ and apply some common sense to find a reasonable
> solution.
Of course a clear-cut criterion is too hard (or maybe impossible) to
find.
The "preferred form for modification" definition seems to work well in
all cases I can think of: obviously, there are cases in which we must be
careful when applying it, but it works anyway.
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpfI0yvjP_u0.pgp
Description: PGP signature